Kent Reliance - demutualising?

baby_boomer

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Given that the directors of any selling society have a duty to do what is best for their members, I can't really see why you expect them to sell up to KR/JCF/anyone else for less than a "fair" value.

Are you serious or is this a joke post?

Dabble26

Result is a very close run thing - shame but there it is and I'm sure certain people are pleased that their "gravy Train" continues. I see in the Telegragh article that Lazenby says the mutual ethos will not be lost until Flowers owns more than 90%. We shall see and not quite the indications I gained from the voting pack. Still I suppose it's the best thing in the light of the massive losses they have run up and I am sure more will now come to light with the cash in place. Sounds cynical but I suppose I am.

MarkyMarkD

baby_boomer wrote: »

Are you serious or is this a joke post?

Serious, of course. Directors have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the members, and that isn't going to be achieved by deliberately selling out at a low value where a higher one is on the table.

@Dabble26 - the transfer document states that the bank must be run on mutual principles whilst KRPS has an ordinary shareholding of 10% or more. It's on page 66:

The New Articles will provide that the Bank's core purpose, is to provide a range of financial services to members of KRPS (being initially the former members of the Society) in support of its co-operative principles. The New Articles entrench this purpose and state that, accordingly, the affairs of the Bank shall be conducted with a view to furthering this purpose rather than the purpose of maximising the profits for distribution to the Bank's shareholders.

This statement of purpose cannot be changed unless KRPS holds less than 10% of all ordinary shares in the Bank, at which point KRPS will lose the right to the entrenchment of this purpose in the articles of association of the Bank and the principle of mutuality.

Dabble26

Thank you MarkymarkD for pointing that out. I had read that section but that is only if KRPS wish to remain that way is my understanding especially when all the other sections are taken into account. It would appear in those other sections, even on the same page as you quote, changes can be made quite easily. But anyway what will the difference be - thay have hardly been operating as a mutual. In particular their rates show what they think of members - investing and borrowing, and for a long time treating members questions at AGMs as a nuisance, especially to do with remunerations. Those who bother to stay with the firm will see in time - they will probably only be those hoping for some sort of payout sometime ahead.

MarkyMarkD

KRPS will be wholly owned by its members, so it's hard to see how it will possible choose to change how it's run. As an industrial and provident society, it legally has to be run for the benefit of its members, so I don't understand your view that this can change in future.

It's rather simplistic to suggest, as I think you are doing, that all borrowers should pay bargain rates and all investors should get great rates, simply because an organisation is a mutual. That is simply not possible because best-buy mortgage rates are lower than best-buy savings rates. Therefore any institution which operates at best-buy levels for all customers will go bust in about 1 second. But, KRBS's results as shown in the transfer document show that it has (recently) been trading at a loss and therefore (don't you think?) giving lots of benefits to members - both savers and borrowers - particularly given that its costs are lower than most other building societies.

jimjames

KRPS may be wholly owned by its members but if it gets to the point of KRPS only owning 10% of the underlying asset (the OneBank business) then whether the members own 100% of KRPS or 1% is pretty academic as the effective ownershop of the business is not mutual anyway.

steady__eddie

Had my welcoming pack for KRPS today. Gosh, the prospects that I am eligble for discounts, cashback (shades of Britannia ?) and vouchers really enthrals me. I can hardly contain myself.
At least I am being treated to 30 quid by krps which is apparently the price of bronze level membership for a limited time.
Must dash over to krpsrewards.com to check it out.

2010

steady__eddie wrote: »

Had my welcoming pack for KRPS today. Gosh, the prospects that I am eligble for discounts, cashback (shades of Britannia ?) and vouchers really enthrals me. I can hardly contain myself.
At least I am being treated to 30 quid by krps which is apparently the price of bronze level membership for a limited time.
Must dash over to krpsrewards.com to check it out.

This is just the start of the gimmicks to get you to waste money.
The bronze is free for a certain period and hardly lets you buy from anyone worth buying from, but the real rouse is to get you to pay for discount "memebership" by upgrading or renewing "bronze".

I voted against the merger and at the first chance will be moving my money elsewhere.
(it`s tied up at the moment in a fixed ISA)

claire07

I couldn't believe this. Phrased as though they were doing me a huge favour offering rewards to companies I'd never use anyway. Bit like Barclaycard taking over my original Leeds Credit Card (which gave 1% cashback) and replacing it with the Freedom vouchers to even more companies I've never heard of and would never use. I just object to the patronising way they think I'll be grateful for the offer!

oldagetraveller

"I voted against the merger and at the first chance will be moving my money elsewhere.
(it`s tied up at the moment in a fixed ISA)"

Ditto, roll on August when my fixed i.s.a. matures and I can hopefully transfer it to a mutual or a proper bank! Not an inconsiderable sum either.
Their "welcome" pack is now languishing in the re-cycle bin.